A recent network television news program reported that nearly 40 percent of big rig tractor-trailers were so dangerous that they would be ordered off the road if inspected. While not all accidents involving commercial trucks and trailers are the result of defective equipment that could be identified in a safety inspection, a significant reduction in accidents is likely to be achieved by taking steps to ensure that key components of such equipment are inspected.
In response to the public's concern for the increase in large vehicle traffic on our nation's highways and the increased frequency of reported accidents involving commercial vehicles, Congress adopted the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (PL 106-159). Pursuant to this Act, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was created within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Part of the mission of this new agency is to develop a long-term strategy to “improve commercial motor vehicle, operator, and carrier safety.” It is expected that by successfully addressing these issues, the incidence of accidents by commercial carriers will be reduced.
In furtherance of its mission, the FMCSA convened a series of meetings and planning sessions with representatives from other Federal agencies, the states, and the transportation industry. Through that process, FMCSA developed a policy entitled: “2010 Strategy—Saving Lives Through Safety, Innovation, and Performance.” The primary goal of this policy is to improve transportation safety through the implementation of 31 strategic initiatives, which run the gamut from improved highway construction to better screening of drivers and equipment to detect potential equipment safety problems before they result in accidents.
The FMCSA's intention is to enhance motor carrier safety management practices through improved vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance procedures. As acknowledged in the 2010 Strategy, “[I]f these functions are not conducted properly, driver and vehicle deficiencies can increase the potential for a crash.” Among the nine separate strategies contemplated by FMCSA to achieve this important objective is “the introduction of new technology to improve safety performance.” In stating its highest priorities, the 2010 Strategy further distills its 31 initiatives down to 13 “highest priority” strategies. Significantly, four of these highest priority strategies can be directly promoted with appropriate technology that will provide an electronic record of vehicle safety inspections and will tend to encourage such inspections. Specifically, it will be important to promote and encourage: (a) vehicle inspections with a focus on technology improvements; (b) improved safety management practices; (c) greater emphasis on technology transfer and deployment to achieve safe operating equipment; and (d) improved safety data collection and analysis.
To avoid accidents caused by defective equipment, Federal law presently requires that commercial drivers make a visual inspection of specific components on a truck (i.e., tractor and trailer), such as the brake system, fuel system, warning lights, tires, etc., performing pre- and post-trip inspections of these basic, but critical components. An exemplary vehicle inspection report listing the components and systems that must be inspected by a driver to satisfy the DOT regulations is illustrated in FIG. 7. However, under the current system, a driver is only required to fill out a paper log and keep it on file for 90 days. Many experts report that less than half of the drivers ever perform the check; instead, many drivers simply fill out the report while seated in the cab of the truck or in a coffee shop. The report is meaningless unless the listed components and systems have actually been inspected. For example, a driver who fails to actually inspect components on his vehicle will not notice that brake fluid is leaking from a hydraulic master brake cylinder. As a result, the brakes on the driver's truck may fail, potentially causing a serious accident.
A signed inspection report does not provide any assurance that a driver actually inspected the components included on the report. However, technology might provide a way to at least ensure that a driver (or other person doing a safety inspection) was physically present in the vicinity of each component requiring inspection, even if the driver is not compelled to affirmatively inspect all of the components. Most people, if required to actually walk to a component such as a tire of a truck, will then be more willing to at least look at the condition of the component, particularly if the task of indicating the condition of the component if there is a problem, is made relatively simple and efficient.
An analogous approach is employed to ensure that a night watchman visits different locations in a building. To provide evidence that he has made his rounds, the night watchman must use a key contained in a lock box at each different location to activate a handheld timekeeping device, making a record of the time that the location was visited. The night watchman thus provides proof of having visited each location for purposes of performing a security check at specified times. However, a night watchman cannot record a security or safety violation with the handheld timekeeping device. Further, requiring that a key be stored in a lock box on a truck or other system that is being inspected is not practical, and it is not efficient to require a driver or other person doing a safety inspection to manually use a first key to gain access to a second key to provide proof that the person physically visited the location during the safety/security inspection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0120745 (Katagishi et al. hereinafter referred to as “Katagishi”) indicates that the use of RFID tags for identifying products has been known since at least 2001. Katagishi also discloses a cell phone capable of reading RFID tags, as well as an accessory to be attached to a cell phone in order to enable the cell phone to read RFID tags. In addition, Nextel Communications Inc., Motorola, Inc., and Symbol Technologies, Inc. announced the availability of a bar code scanner attachment for mobile phones in an article published Jun. 11, 2003. Neither reference teaches or suggests using a cell phone to read bar codes or RFID tags in order to verify that a user was at a location corresponding to a required inspection point.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,680,328 discloses the use of electronic data entry equipment that simply takes the place of handwritten forms or checklists for recording data, but is unable to provide evidence that a person actually visited a component that was reportedly inspected.
There does not appear to be any prior art mechanical or electronic device designed to verify that a person was in a specific location for purposes of carrying out a safety inspection or any other inspection at that location. It would be desirable to provide a handheld device that automatically detects when the person is in the proximity of a component to be inspected, and enables a record to that effect to be produced.